John Bolton, nationaal veiligheidsadviseur, alsof de duivel zelf is benoemd........

Mensen ik had het bericht, waarin wordt 'gesproken' over de vervanging van figuren rond het beest Trump, 'nog niet gepubliceerd'* of men maakte bekend dat McMaster, zelf al een enorme ploert van formaat, werd  afgezet door het beest, om plaats te maken voor John Bolton, ofwel de duivel zelf..... (zo niet dan toch één van diens trouwste medewerkers...)

Bolton schreef onlangs 'geheel toevallig een' opiniestuk' in de Wall Street Journal dat de VS Noord-Korea moet aanvallen.... uit zelfbehoud!!! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Alsof Noord-Korea ooit ook maar een miljoenste van een seconde een gevaar is geweest voor de VS....... Ja ik lach wel, maar deze opperploert is werkelijk een gevaar voor de hele wereld.......

Alsof je een oorlogsmisdadiger, die je minstens als terrorist moet zien, minister van defensie maakt.... Oh ja, deze benoeming is in feite nog erger...!!

Bolton is één van de hoofdverantwoordelijken voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, waar hij de massavernietigingsfabel bleef herhalen als ambassadeur bij de VN......... Al moest je ofwel een topidioot zijn om dit te geloven, dan wel een kwaadaardige collaborateur van de VS, of lobbyist van andere westerse regeringen zijn die achter deze illegale oorlog stonden (zoals de reguliere westerse media....).... Hoewel een lobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex, of een combi van het e.e.a. heel goed mogelijk is.........

Met Pompeo, een andere opperschoft op Buitenlandse Zaken, een groot voorstander van oorlog tegen Iran en Noord-Korea, laat zich raden wat er op het 'menu staat.....' (één of het liefst twee illegale oorlogen, misschien zelfs met het gebruik van 'tactische' kernwapens, zodat deze getest kunnen worden in de praktijk.......)

Ik hoef je niet te vertellen wat hiervan het gevolg zal zijn..... Och, waarom ook niet: Rusland zal dit zeker niet pikken en waarschijnlijk zal China al evenmin op de handen blijven zitten, ofwel WOIII zal dan een voldongen feit zijn.........

Hoe is het mogelijk dat de westerse media zo relatief gelaten reageren op deze laatste benoemingen.....??? Ach ja, die zien niet eens de grootschalige terreur die de VS uitoefent op een explosief deel van de wereld..... Sterker: nog steeds durft men daar niet te stellen dat de VS meehelpt aan een genocide op de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen......

Darius Shahtahmasebi noemt Bolton America's Worst Nightmare, ik zou een stap verder willen gaan en hem daarom de ergste nachtmerrie voor de wereld willen noemen.....

America’s Worst Nightmare

March 23, 2018 at 11:45 am

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — John Bolton’s inclusion in the Trump administration as Donald Trump’s new national security advisor is nothing short of a nightmare.

Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador under George W. Bush, will be replacing General H.R. McMaster as Trump’s national security advisor, who replaced former “disgraced” national security advisor Michael Flynn. When the president struck a Syrian airbase in April 2017, it was McMaster who drew up and briefed Trump on the strike proposals, one of which was reportedly very extensive.

McMaster was also reportedly one of the main backers of a secret plan to give North Korea’s Kim Jong-un a “bloody nose strike,” a limited strike to dismantle its nuclear ambitions without risking an all-out war.

However, despite this, it appears McMaster wasn’t hawkish enough for Donald Trump’s needs. While McMaster publicly berates Iran and North Korea on a regular basis, he persistently warned against Trump’s plan to completely derail the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) formed with Iran in 2015. He also later denied the claims that the Trump administration was looking to deliver the “bloody nose strike” on North Korea, perhaps indicating he was not completely on board with the idea after all (or had decided otherwise at that particular juncture in history).

Enter John Bolton. Less than month ago, he wrote an op-ed article published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) entitled “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First” — an idea so bad, it seems, that about a week later, the WSJ published a counter viewpoint simply entitled “Striking North Korea First Is a Bad Proposal.”

In Bolton’s short-sighted op-ed — aside from the fact that he offers no real legal analysis at all (those who do consider it a legal analysis must explain why the argument of preemptive self-defense applies to the U.S. but not to North Korea, which faces American aggression near its borders on a routine basis) — it’s also quite telling that he relies on the evidence of CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who alleged in January that Pyongyang was only “a handful of months” away from being able to strike the American mainland with nukes.

It is no coincidence that next in line for Donald Trump’s secretary of state position is Pompeo himself.

Together, Bolton and Pompeo will be able to advise Trump on anti-North Korean and anti-Iranian platforms so hawkish there is no telling what’s to come (though we have a fairly decent idea).

As some of you may know, John Bolton’s hawkishness has already led to some of the most despicable foreign policy agendas of our generation.

“We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq,” Bolton famously said in 2002 while serving as President George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security. He also called Hussein a “threat to the region” and claimed he needed to be “disarmed.”

“But the end of the story is clear here. And if Saddam Hussein does not co-operate we have made it clear this is the last chance for him…I think the Iraqi people would be unique in history if they didn’t welcome the overthrow of this dictatorial regime,” he added.

Even when this rationale for invading Iraq and destabilizing an entire region turned out to be one of the worst editions of “fake news” ever to sting the planet, in 2015 – some 12 years later – Bolton still claimed the Iraq War was worth it and said that, conversely, the worst decision involving Iraq was the “2011 decision to withdraw U.S. and coalition forces.” In 2016, he then changed his mind to say that the only mistake of the Iraq War was that the U.S. did not get rid of Saddam Hussein sooner.

If John Bolton leads the cheers to invade Iran or North Korea, who will hold him accountable?

Apparently having learned no lessons at all from the criminal invasion of Iraq, Bolton also wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran” in 2015. He made it quite clear that “only military action” could accomplish what was required to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In Bolton’s eyes, the JCPOA doesn’t cut it.

He also openly called for the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, only to later condemn the Obama administration for doing just that (an invasion is bad if a Democrat does it, and vice versa, of course, depending on who you are running against).

John Bolton is also a strong anti-Russian, drone-warfare supporting imperialist who once also appeared to call for the invasion of Cuba.

He is now going to be advising Donald Trump, a seventy-one-year-old mass murdering narcissist with an attention span of two to four minutes, on matters of national security.

Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

==============================================

* Zie: 'Wereld Oorlog III: is deze nog te ontwijken?' 

Zie ook: 'NEOCONS ARE BACK WITH A BIG WAR BUDGET AND BIG WAR PLANS' (een column van Ron Paul, overgenomen van Stan van Houcke)

        en: 'Noord-Korea en de VS: de planning van de VS om Rusland en China aan te vallen met kernraketten........'

        en: 'Wereldoorlog III: is deze nog te ontwijken?'

        en: 'John Bolton heeft beloofd dat Iran voor 2019 onder een ander regime zal leven.......'

        en: 'VS nu definitief op oorlogspad tegen China.....'

        en: 'Netanyahu en Bolton stoken het vuur in het Midden-Oosten verder op: Iran moet en zal vallen.....'

       en: 'Trump beloofde geen extra oorlog in het Midden-Oosten >> toch heeft hij het pad vrijgemaakt voor oorlog tegen Iran......'  

Wereldoorlog III: is deze nog te ontwijken?

Alle tekenen wijzen naar een komend groot conflict >> het samenspannen van de VS en haar (andere) slaafse westerse landen tegen Rusland, Syrië en Iran, plus natuurlijk China en Noord-Korea, gesteund middels een enorme propaganda van de westerse media, zorgt ervoor dat er niet veel nodig is of we zitten middenin WOIII...... Wat betreft China en Noord-Korea: daar zijn nog geen officiële NAVO oefeningen gehouden, al zijn de spanningen er daar niet minder om.... (hoewel Australië, Nieuw-Zeeland en de Filipijnen natuurlijk ook een soort NAVO bondgenoot zijn*) Neem de alweer grote militaire oefening van Zuid-Korea en de VS langs de grenzen en territoriale wateren van Noord-Korea...... Tijdens de Spelen kon de wereld even ademhalen en toenadering tussen de 2 Korea's was even een feit.....

De Spelen zijn nog niet afgelopen of de VS kondigt aan dat de grote jaarlijkse militaire oefening 'gewoon' doorgaat..... Blijkbaar heeft de VS Moon Jae-in, de Zuid-Koreaanse president en de Zuid-Koreaanse regering dusdanig onder druk gezet dat men toestemde in het laten doorgaan van die oefeningen, militaire oefeningen die de Noord-Koreanen al decennia lang steken, maar waar vooral de VS niet van af wil zien........ Tja, zeg nu zelf, 'wat is belangrijker', een voor de winsten en macht van het militair-industrieel complex en de macht van de VS te houden grootschalige militaire oefening, of vrede?? Vrede is (blijkbaar) voor dombo's......

Niet alleen de agressie tegen landen als Syrië, Rusland, Iran, China en Noord-Korea wijzen in de richting van WOIII, maar met de wisselingen aan de top van de Trump administratie, kan het bijna niet anders of we stevenen af op een grootschalige oorlog....... De ene psychopathische houwdegen van die administratie na de andere wordt op straat gezet, waarvoor in de plaats psychopaten worden ingezet die nog een fikse portie kwaadaardiger zijn......... De VS heeft zelfs gesteld dat een aanval met conventionele wapens (dus niet met kernwapens) op bevriende landen niet wordt uitgesloten, een aanval gericht op de bevolking en infrastructuur van die bevriende landen.........

Darius Shahtahmasebi noemt het niet in het volgende artikel, maar er ligt ook nog eens een enorme Himalaya aan VS schulden, het is dat de munt van de VS een internationaal betaalmiddel is en bijvoorbeeld de olieprijs in dollars wordt uitgedrukt, anders zou het er wel eens heel anders uit kunnen zien voor de VS en haar onafzienbare schuldenlast......

Vreemd trouwens dat een land als China zulke enorme voorraden dollars heeft, als dit land deze op de markt dumpt, kan de VS financieel inpakken..... Dan blijft de vraag over wat goed is voor een land met enorme schulden? Juist, oorlog!! Vandaar ook dat de geldpersen in de VS overuren maken..... Het zou me trouwens niet verbazen als China de dollar niet eens durft te dumpen als betaalmiddel (valuta om mee te investeren)....... Gezien deze zaak zijn de agressieve woorden van Trump over een importheffing op Chinees staal en aluminium nog vreemder........ Blijkbaar wil hij daarmee zeggen schijt te hebben aan China en haar enorme dollarvoorraad.........

Het vorige voorbeeld is nog meer van belang, immers China en Rusland hebben al een paar keer gesproken over een ander internationaal betaalmiddel dan de dollar. Khadaffi wou de olie dollar inruilen voor de gouden dinar, een munt waarvan de tegenwaarde altijd in goud aanwezig zou zijn, één van de redenen voor de illegale oorlog van de VS en haar oorlogshond NAVO tegen Libië........ (de enorme goudvoorraad van Libië is tijdens de illegale oorlog van de VS en andere NAVO lidstaten tegen dit land 'verdwenen....')

Zo bezien is WOIII eigenlijk niet meer te ontwijken.......

A World War Might Sound Crazy, but It Could Be America’s Last Act of Desperation

March 19, 2018 at 12:10 pm

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Though some have been warning about the catastrophic potential for a third global conflict for years, it wasn’t until recently that these warnings became more mainstream. The calamitous nature of the violence in Syria — which has one nuclear power defending a government that has been the target of a regime change operation led by the world’s superpower — combined with 2017’s threats of “fire and fury” against another state intently pursuing a nuclear weapons supply of its own, has pushed the issue of a third world war directly into the public discourse.

While certain hotspots throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe (i.e. Ukraine) have seen some notable escalations in the last few years, a direct conflict between Russia and the United States is still yet to emerge. That’s because the idea of a third world war in today’s world is completely insane. If the two countries that currently possess the world’s greatest supplies of nuclear weapons go to war, there may not be a world left for the victors to inhabit after the war is done, thereby making it an unthinkable proposal.

Then again, the U.S. did just recently bomb a significant number of Russian-linked forces in Syria, reportedly killing scores of them. The targets of these air strikes were also predominantly Iranian-backed militias (just in case there weren’t enough state actors already involved in this ongoing conflict).

Speaking of Iran, Donald Trump recently fired Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and immediately appointed CIA director Mike Pompeo to replace him. Pompeo is a notable anti-Iran hawk who will almost certainly go further than Tillerson was ever prepared to go with regard to the Iranian nuclear accord, a deal Pompeo believes is “disastrous.”

There are also reports now emerging that Donald Trump is planning to oust his national security advisor, General H.R. McMaster. McMaster originally replaced anti-Iran war hawk Michael Flynn, but apparently, McMaster’s non-stop allegations against Iran were not enough to please Trump. McMaster was not on board with Trump’s attempt to completely derail the Iranian nuclear deal.

One should bear in mind that when Donald Trump made the decision to strike the Syrian government in April of last year in what amounted to one of the year’s most important and over-publicized geopolitical events, it was McMaster who drew up the strike plan options and presented them to Trump to choose from. If this is a man not hawkish enough for Trump’s administration, his looming removal from the administration is a worrying sign of what’s to come.

Donald Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review entails that, as Katrina vanden Heuvel noted in an article published in the Washington Post:

“The United States reserves the right to unleash nuclear weapons first in ‘extreme circumstances’ to defend the ‘vital interests’ not only of the United States but also of its ‘allies and partners’ — a total of some 30 countries. ‘Extreme circumstances,’ the review states explicitly, include ‘significant non-nuclear attacks,’ including conventional attacks on ‘allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure.’ The United States also maintains a ‘portion of its nuclear forces’ on daily alert, with the option of launching those forces ‘promptly.’ [emphasis added]

Considering that a former analyst for the Council on Foreign Relations, Micah Zenko, just warned that Pentagon officials are actively searching for a “big war” against Russia and China, the trajectory we are currently on starts to make a lot more sense.

In other parts of the world, we are witnessing a new era of hostilities towards Russia. The debacle taking place in the U.K. right now, which has seen allegations of a Russian chemical attack on British soil, has prompted the U.K., U.S., France, and Germany to band together and condemn Russia for something that hasn’t even been conclusively investigated yet.

After years of constantly being painted as the enemy, Russia just declared via Twitter that a “Cold War II” has begun, and who can blame them?

A third world war might sound crazy, but it is only crazy if we fail to understand the desperation that continues to plague the men in suits who pull the strings guiding American foreign policy. Consider that the Syrian government, with Russian and Iranian backing, has managed to stabilize significant parts of the country despite all odds so that refugees can return home safely. It should be clear that the best way to solve the Syrian crisis is to discontinue America’s regime change policy in Syria and allow the people of Syria to normalize their own lives without Washington’s interference. Yet, after seven years of brutal violence, the U.S. still refuses to admit defeat in Syria. If anything, the U.S. has now officially set its sights on directly combatting Iranian influence in the country, raising the potential for significant escalations.

Maybe, just maybe, the U.S. is that desperate. Apparently, the U.S. has to remain in Syria out of necessity. It cannot afford to sit on the sidelines as Russia re-emerges as the major power broker in the region, eating up all the major contracts coming out of Syria (together with Iran) as it looks to poach American allies left, right, and center.

Additionally, Russia recently warned the U.S. that it will not tolerate Washington’s aggressive attacks on the Syrian government and will respond with strikes of their own should the U.S. military threaten Russian personnel. One should expect that eventually, there will be a point where Russia will no longer allow these attacks to go unanswered.

As America’s power and influence wane, the time will come for both Russia and China to make their mark on the global stage. Just on a side note, it should come as no surprise that Trump’s nominated ambassador to Australia, Adm. Harry Harris, is a known anti-China war hawk who recently warned Congress to prepare for a war with China.

Why should we need to prepare for a war with China? Who talks and thinks like that? A nation on a slow and inevitable decline that cannot refuse to admit defeat in almost any battle theater since World War II, that’s who.

Realistically, nobody wants a third world war, but as the U.S. increasingly thrashes to maintain its control of the global financial markets, its network of over 1,000 bases worldwide, and its status as the world’s global policemen, a third world war may be Washington’s only hope at staying afloat as the world’s top power.

Read more by Darius Shahtahmasebi:

• Watch: Colonel Says Israel Is Dragging the United States Into World War III
• Putin Will Destroy the World With Nuclear Weapons If Russia Is Bombed First
• The Second Cold War Has Begun — and We Only Have Ourselves to Blame
• After 7 Years of the US Meddling in Syria, What Have We Learned?
• The Real Reason Israel and Lebanon Are on the Verge of War

Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

=================================

* Australië, Nieuw-Zeeland, de Filipijnen, Thailand en Zuid-Korea zijn zogenaamde MNNA's (van: 'Major non-NATO Ally). Deze landen werken op militair gebied nauw samen met de VS (en gegarandeerd met andere NAVO lidstaten), ook wat betreft bewapening en training. (zie wat dat betreft ook de bemoeienis van de VS met de strijd tegen IS op de Filipijnen en de militaire oefeningen met Zuid-Korea langs de grens en de territoriale wateren van Noord-Korea). Voorts heeft de VS militaire bases in die landen, samen met die in westerse landen, kan je spreken van een omsingeling van Rusland en China met militaire bases van de VS......

Zie ook: 'John Bolton, nationaal veiligheidsadviseur, alsof de duivel zelf is benoemd........'

        en: 'NEOCONS ARE BACK WITH A BIG WAR BUDGET AND BIG WAR PLANS' (een column van Ron Paul, overgenomen van Stan van Houcke)

        en: 'Noord-Korea en de VS: de planning van de VS om Rusland en China aan te vallen met kernraketten........'

        en: 'John Bolton, nationaal veiligheidsadviseur, alsof de duivel zelf is benoemd........'

        en: 'VS nu definitief op oorlogspad tegen China.....'

Op 27 maart 2017 kop verbeterd, daar ik dom genoeg Wereld Oorlog had neergeschreven.

VS: oud-geheime dienst medewerkers en inlichtingen veteranen waarschuwen Trump en de wereld voor een oorlog met Iran........

Oud-geheime dienst medewerkers en inlichtingen veteranen hebben een memorandum voor president beest Trump geschreven, met de waarschuwing geen oorlog met Iran te beginnen, dit daar ze de tekenen daartoe zien...... Zoals ze ook president George W Bush (nog zo'n gevaarlijke malloot, dat geldt overigens ook voor Obama de gespletene) waarschuwden geen oorlog te beginnen met Irak in de 6 weken voordat de VS illegaal, een op leugens gebaseerde oorlog begon tegen dat land.......

We weten wat van de illegale oorlog tegen Irak heeft gebracht: meer dan 1,5 miljoen vermoorde Irakezen en een land dat in chaos is gedompeld en in puin ligt (reken maar niet, met IS in het defensief, dat de ellende voor de bevolking daar voorbij is.....)

Een en ander is ook ingegeven door het bezoek dat de Israëlische Palestijnenslachter Netanyahu volgende week aan de VS zal brengen, deze psychopathische moordenaar 'is gewond geraakt' door met bewijs onderbouwde zware beschuldigingen van corruptie......* En als bij gewonde roofdieren moet je dan extra oppassen, immers een oorlog met Iran zou Netanyahu nu wel uitermate goed uitkomen.......

Uiteraard zal de VS komen met een zogenaamd bewijs waarop het 'niet anders kan' dan Iran aanvallen, ofwel een 'false flag' operatie, zoals de VS die door haar bloedige geschiedenis heen heeft gebruikt voor het uitoefenen van ongebreidelde agressie, of beter gezegd: grootschalige terreur...........

Lees het volgende uitstekende memorandum en oordeel zelf:

Intelligence Veterans Warn of Growing Risk for War With Iran Based on False Pretexts

February 26, 2018 at 9:05 am

Written by Anti-Media News Desk

(CN) — As President Donald Trump prepares to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week, a group of U.S. intelligence veterans offers corrections to a number of false accusations that have been leveled against Iran.

MEMORANDUM FOR:  The President

FROM:  Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT:  War With Iran

INTRODUCTION

In our December 21st Memorandum to you, we cautioned that the claim that Iran is currently the world’s top sponsor of terrorism is unsupported by hard evidence. Meanwhile, other false accusations against Iran have intensified. Thus, we feel obliged to alert you to the virtually inevitable consequences of war with Iran, just as we warned President George W. Bush six weeks before the U.S. attack on Iraq 15 years ago.

In our first Memorandum in this genre we told then-President Bush that we saw “no compelling reason” to attack Iraq, and warned “the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” The consequences will be far worse, should the U.S. become drawn into war with Iran. We fear that you are not getting the straight story on this from your intelligence and national security officials.

After choosing “War With Iran” for the subject-line of this Memo, we were reminded that we had used it before, namely, for a Memorandum to President Obama on August 3, 2010 in similar circumstances. You may wish to ask your staff to give you that one to read and ponder. It included a startling quote from then-Chairman of President Bush Jr.’s Intelligence Advisory Board (and former national security adviser to Bush Sr.) Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who told the Financial Times on October 14, 2004 that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized;” that “Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger.”  We wanted to remind you of that history, as you prepare to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week.

*   *   *

Rhetoric vs. Reality

We believe that the recent reporting regarding possible conflict with nuclear-armed North Korea has somewhat obscured consideration of the significantly higher probability that Israel or even Saudi Arabia will take steps that will lead to a war with Iran that will inevitably draw the United States in. Israel is particularly inclined to move aggressively, with potentially serious consequences for the U.S., in the wake of the recent incident involving an alleged Iranian drone and the shooting down of an Israeli aircraft.

There is also considerable anti-Iran rhetoric in U.S. media, which might well facilitate a transition from a cold war-type situation to a hot war involving U.S. forces. We have for some time been observing with some concern the growing hostility towards Iran coming out of Washington and from the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is warning that the “time to act is now” to thwart Iran’s aggressive regional ambitions while U.S. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley sees a “wake-up” call in the recent shooting incident involving Syria and Israel. Particular concern has been expressed by the White House that Iran is exploiting Shi’a minorities in neighboring Sunni dominated states to create unrest and is also expanding its role in neighboring Iraq and Syria.

While we share concerns over the Iranian government’s intentions vis-à-vis its neighbors, we do not believe that the developments in the region, many of which came about through American missteps, have a major impact on vital U.S. national interests. Nor is Iran, which often sees itself as acting defensively against surrounding Sunni states, anything like an existential threat to the United States that would mandate the sustained military action that would inevitably result if Iran is attacked.

Iran’s alleged desire to stitch together a sphere of influence consisting of an arc of allied nations and proxy forces running from its western borders to the Mediterranean Sea has been frequently cited as justification for a more assertive policy against Tehran, but we believe this concern to be greatly exaggerated. Iran, with a population of more than 80 million, is, to be sure, a major regional power but militarily, economically and politically it is highly vulnerable.

Limited Military Capability

Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard is well armed and trained, but much of its “boots on the ground” army consists of militiamen of variable quality. Its Air Force is a “shadow” of what existed under the Shah and is significantly outgunned by its rivals in the Persian Gulf, not to mention Israel. Its navy is only “green water” capable in that it consists largely of smaller vessels responsible for coastal defense supplemented by the swarming of Revolutionary Guard small speedboats.

When Napoleon had conquered much of continental Europe and was contemplating invading Britain it was widely believed that England was helpless before him. British Admiral Earl St Vincent was unperturbed: “I do not say the French can’t come, I only say they can’t come by sea.” We likewise believe that Iran’s apparent threat is in reality decisively limited by its inability to project power across the water or through the air against neighboring states that have marked superiority in both respects.

The concern over a possibly developing “Shi’ite land bridge,” also referred to as an “arc” or “crescent,” is likewise overstated. It ignores the reality that Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all have strong national identities and religiously mixed populations. They are influenced — some of them strongly — by Iran but they are not puppet states. And there is also an ethnic division that the neighboring states’ populations are very conscious of– they are Arabs and Iran is Persian, which is also true of the Shi’a populations in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

Majority Shi’a Iraq, for example, is now very friendly to Iran but it has to deal with considerable Kurdish and Sunni minorities in its governance and in the direction of its foreign policy. It will not do Iran’s bidding on a number of key issues, including Baghdad’s relationship with Washington, and would be unwilling to become a proxy in Tehran’s conflicts with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iraqi Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi, the highest-ranking Sunni in the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi government, has, for example, recently called for the demobilization of the Shi’ite Popular Mobilization Forces or militias that have been fighting ISIS because they “have their own political aspirations, their own [political] agendas. … They are very dangerous to the future of Iraq.”

Nuclear Weapons Thwarted

A major concern that has undergirded much of the perception of an Iranian threat is the possibility that Tehran will develop a nuclear weapon somewhere down the road. We believe that the current Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, even if imperfect, provides the best response to that Iranian proliferation problem. The U.N. inspections regime is strict and, if the agreement stands, there is every reason to believe that Iran will be unable to take the necessary precursor steps leading to a nuclear weapons program. Iran will be further limited in its options after the agreement expires in nine years. Experts believe that, at that point, Iran its not likely to choose to accumulate the necessary highly enriched uranium stocks to proceed.

The recent incident involving the shoot-down of a drone alleged to be Iranian, followed by the downing of an Israeli fighter by a Syrian air defense missile, resulted in a sharp response from Tel Aviv, though reportedly mitigated by a warning from Russian President Vladimir Putin that anything more provocative might inadvertently involve Russia in the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to have moderated his response but his government is clearly contemplating a more robust intervention to counter what he describes as a developing Iranian presence in Syria.

In addition, Netanyahu may be indicted on corruption charges, and it is conceivable that he might welcome a “small war” to deflect attention from mounting political problems at home.

Getting Snookered Into War

We believe that the mounting Iran hysteria evident in the U.S. media and reflected in Beltway groupthink has largely been generated by Saudi Arabia and Israel, who nurture their own aspirations for regional political and military supremacy. There are no actual American vital interests at stake and it is past time to pause and take a step backwards to consider what those interests actually are in a region that has seen nothing but disaster since 2003. Countering an assumed Iranian threat that is minimal and triggering a war would be catastrophic and would exacerbate instability, likely leading to a breakdown in the current political alignment of the entire Middle East. It would be costly for the United States.

Iran is not militarily formidable, but its ability to fight on the defensive against U.S. naval and air forces is considerable and can cause high casualties. There appears to be a perception in the Defense

Department that Iran could be defeated in a matter of days, but we would warn that such predictions tend to be based on overly optimistic projections, witness the outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, Tehran would be able again to unleash terrorist resources throughout the region, endangering U.S. military and diplomats based there as well as American travelers and businesses. The terrorist threat might easily extend beyond the Middle East into Europe and also the United States, while the dollar costs of a major new conflict and its aftermath could break the bank, literally.

Another major consideration before ratcheting up hostilities should be that a war with Iran might not be containable. As the warning from President Vladimir Putin to Netanyahu made clear, other major powers have interests in what goes on in the Persian Gulf, and there is a real danger that a regional war could have global consequences.

In sum, we see a growing risk that the U.S. will become drawn into hostilities on pretexts fabricated by Israel and Saudi Arabia for their actual common objective (“regime change” in Iran). A confluence of factors and misconceptions about what is at stake and how such a conflict is likely to develop, coming from both inside and outside the Administration have, unfortunately, made such an outcome increasingly likely.

We have seen this picture before, just 15 years ago in Iraq, which should serve as a warning. The prevailing perception of threat that the Mullahs of Iran allegedly pose directly against the security of the U.S. is largely contrived. Even if all the allegations were true, they would not justify an Iraq-style “preventive war” violating national as well as international law. An ill-considered U.S. intervention in Iran is surely not worth the horrific humanitarian, military, economic, and political cost to be paid if Washington allows itself to become part of an armed attack.

FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY

William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)

Kathleen Christison, CIA, Senior Analyst on Middle East (ret.)

Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF; ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC) (ret.)

John Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer; resigned Feb. 27, 2003 as Political Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Athens, in protest against the U.S. attack on Iraq (ret.)

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, National Intelligence Estimates Officer (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East (ret.)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Greg Thielmann, former Director of the Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs Office, State

Department Bureau of Intelligence & Research (INR), and former senior staffer on Senate Intelligence Committee (ret.)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA ret.)

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel (USA, ret.), former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State; Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary (associate VIPS)

Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)

Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)

Ann Wright, Colonel, US Army (ret.); also Foreign Service Officer who, like Political Counselor John Brady Kiesling, resigned in opposition to the war on Iraq

Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

===========================

* En misdadiger Netanyahu wordt nog serieus genomen ook door de reguliere westerse journalistiek en het grootste deel van de westerse politici.....

Zie ook: 'Oost-Ghouta >> 'gematigde rebellen' schieten op vluchtende burgers, aldus VN....... Aandacht in Nederlandse media nul komma nada....' (waar me het nog meeviel dat deze media niet hebben gemeld dat Syrische troepen op de vluchtelingen schoten, zoals in Oost-Aleppo gebeurde, waarover je rustig kan zeggen dat dit een false flag operatie was)

       en: 'VS agressie in Syrië voorzien van een vooropgezet plan.......'

       en: 'Oost-Ghouta: MSM leugens ofwel het zoveelste geval van 'fake news' lekt weg uit uit de massamedia'

       en: 'VS bezig met voorbereiding van een 'door Syrië' gepleegde gifgasaanval, ofwel de volgende VS false flag operatie'